Shun & Chiu - [2024] FedCFamC1A 104

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Shun & Chiu [2024] FedCFamC1A 104

Appeal from: Chiu & Shun (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 167

Appeal number: NAA 88 of 2024

File number: SYC 8033 of 2015

Judgment of: ALDRIDGE, JARRETT & CAMPTON JJ

Date of judgment: 3 July 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from orders dismissing claims for property settlement and spousal maintenance – Where no ground of appeal challenges the primary judge’s finding as to property ownership – Where the appellant agreed with values of the properties at trial that he then challenged on appeal – Where the appellant failed to challenge various liabilities that he then sought to challenge on appeal – No error identified – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.

Legislation:
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Div 7.1.5

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 14, 54

Cases cited:
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305

Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28

Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418; [1950] HCA 35

Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491; [1988] HCA 12

Number of paragraphs: 26

Date of hearing: 24 June 2024

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms Cohen

Solicitor for the Appellant: Westlink Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Bell

Solicitor for the Respondent: Dong & Partners
ORDERS

NAA 88 of 2024
SYC 8033 of 2015

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MR SHUN

Appellant

AND:
MS CHIU

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, JARRETT & CAMPTON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

3 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $29,401.78 within 28 days.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Shun & Chiu has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALDRIDGE, JARRETT & CAMPTON JJ:
INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) on 18 March 2024, dismissing the appellant husband’s claims for property settlement and spousal maintenance and the respondent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Shun & Chiu

Details

AGLC: Shun & Chiu [2024] FedCFamC1A 104
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1A 104
Decision Date: 3 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Shun & Chiu was brought by the appellant, Mr Shun, against the orders of the Family Court that dismissed his claims for property settlement and spousal maintenance. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1 Appellate Jurisdiction. The primary judge had made findings in relation to the property settlement and spousal maintenance claims, which Mr Shun sought to challenge on appeal. The respondent, Ms Chiu, defended the primary judge's findings and argued that the appeal should be dismissed.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether any errors were made by the primary judge in his determination of the property settlement and spousal maintenance claims. Mr Shun argued that the primary judge had erred in his assessment of the property settlement and in his refusal to award spousal maintenance. The court had to consider whether Mr Shun had identified any grounds of appeal that successfully challenged the primary judge’s findings. Ms Chiu submitted that no such grounds existed, and the primary judge's findings should stand.

The court found that Mr Shun had not identified any grounds of appeal that successfully challenged the primary judge’s findings. Mr Shun had agreed to the values of the properties during the trial but later sought to challenge these values on appeal. Additionally, there were various liabilities that Mr Shun did not challenge during the trial but attempted to contest on appeal. The court held that these inconsistencies and the failure to challenge certain issues at trial meant that no grounds for appeal were validly made. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that Mr Shun pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 88 of 2024

SYC 8033 of 2015

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR SHUN

Appellant

AND:

MS CHIU

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, JARRETT & CAMPTON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

3 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $29,401.78 within 28 days.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

NAA 88 of 2024 SYC 8033 of 2015
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MR SHUN Appellant
AND:	MS CHIU Respondent

Appeal from:	Chiu & Shun (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 167
Appeal number:	NAA 88 of 2024
File number:	SYC 8033 of 2015
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE, JARRETT & CAMPTON JJ
Date of judgment:	3 July 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from orders dismissing claims for property settlement and spousal maintenance – Where no ground of appeal challenges the primary judge’s finding as to property ownership – Where the appellant agreed with values of the properties at trial that he then challenged on appeal – Where the appellant failed to challenge various liabilities that he then sought to challenge on appeal – No error identified – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Div 7.1.5 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 14, 54
Cases cited:	Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418; [1950] HCA 35 Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491; [1988] HCA 12
Number of paragraphs:	26
Date of hearing:	24 June 2024
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Appellant:	Ms Cohen
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Westlink Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Bell
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Dong & Partners

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE, JARRETT & CAMPTON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	3 JULY 2024